In particular, some students [in the audience at Carter's talk at Brandeis University] challenged Carter on a sentence that has brought him much grief. On Page 213 of his book, Carter wrote: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

This sentence, the students noted, suggests that suicide bombings are a tactic of war, to be suspended only when peace is achieved. Carter agreed -- and apologized -- and said this sentence was a great mistake on his part.

"The sentence was worded in an absolutely improper and stupid way," Carter said. "I apologize to you and to everyone here . . . it was a mistake on my part."

I blogged about this item earlier, so I thought I'd blog about this response on Carter's part.

Why would he apologize? According to may of the comments to your earlier post, only a card carrying member of the Israel lobby or a hypersensitive paranoid ZionistIsraeli lobbyist person of Jewish descent could possible read the disputed sentence as anything except a fervent prayer for peace and good will.

I think, despite the comments on this blog, the following two statements are clear:

1. Carter was never justifying or encouraging terror tactics on the part of the Palestinians
2. The sentence in question could have been better phrased, and Carter found it easier to apologize for it than to debate a linguistic analysis of it, despite the fact a linguistic analysis shows it to be less upsetting than casual readers found it.

Although he apologized for the way the sentence was phrased, he actually never distanced himself from the belief that suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism are justified. I am assuming he didn't apologize about the book's title or the other hundred or so offensive things in the book.

Although he apologized for the way the sentence was phrased, he actually never distanced himself from the belief that suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism are justified.

For the record, he also never distanced himself from the belief that Jews are the cause of all the wars in the world, so let's make sure we hang him with that too.

When students say, "This sentence makes it sound like suicide bombings are a tactic of war," and Carter agrees and apologizes, some people would consider that a pretty clear distancing. Not you, apparently.

4) THEREFORE, the Palestinian authorities need to "make it clear" that if progress is made on the roadmap, the terrorism will in fact cease, because Israel believes to the contrary.

I suppose it's the "if progress is made" that has people so riled up. The terror needs to stop, period. After that, progress can be made. Of course, this doesn't even address the extremely small likelihood that the Palestinian "authorities" can do anything to stop terrorism, even if they sincerely wanted to.

When students say, "This sentence makes it sound like suicide bombings are a tactic of war," and Carter agrees and apologizes, some people would consider that a pretty clear distancing. Not you, apparently.

When Carter says the phrase was worded in a stupid way, the problem wasn't the wording of the sentence, it was the entire sentence. How else could he have worded it?

I would have expected such a great champion of peace to have said the sentence was a mistake and that he deplored the tactic of killing innocent civilians. Instead it was a half apology, "I apologize my word choice could have been better." That isn't a clear distancing.

How about:
"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism whenand that international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

Why this compulsion to have Jimmy Carter state the obvious? Could anyone believe in good faith that by his clumsy phrasing he meant to endorse the terrorist killing of civilians? When confronted with that possible, if utterly unreasonable, reading, he apologized for it and disowned it. End of story, unless you want him to say nice things about motherhood and puppies too.

1) Palestinians have been engaged in terrorism against Israel for a long time.

2) They have created the impression that terrorism against Israel will continue regardless of what Israel does.

3) Because of this belief, Israel is reluctant to negotiate or make any good-faith gestures, since the terrorism is apparently going to continue anyway.

4) THEREFORE, the Palestinian authorities need to "make it clear" that if progress is made on the roadmap, the terrorism will in fact cease, because Israel believes to the contrary

Does anyone not understand that such an attempt to "make it clear" would be a bald-faced lie? That's the nub of the issue, as far as I am concerned.

Past history has amply demonstrated that whatever "progress" is made in peace talks, the terrorism simply continues and continues, if not worsens. So no amount of "making it clear" -- by which I presume you mean rhetoric -- will convince a skeptical Israeli public.

I would be curious to know how many commenters on this blog honestly believe that palestinian terrorism directed against Israel would stop as long as the state of Israel continues to exist in the middle east irrespective of the roadmap, international law, or whatever other ideas people think would solve the problem.

how many commenters on this blog honestly believe that palestinian terrorism directed against Israel would stop

Palestinian violence would not stop at the creation of a Palestinian state. It would not stop at the destruction of the State of Israel. It would not stop at the murder of all Jews. It would not even stop at the destruction of the US and the murder of all Americans.

Palestinians fight because they are. The reasons are buried in their culture. Those reasons must be addressed before the violence stops. Israel, Jews, and America are excuses to do that they want to do.

A substantial percentage of Palestinians do not accept Israel's presence, regardless of borders.

A substantial percentage of Palestinians (lots of overlap here, but not the same group) are willing to resort to terrorism until *all* of their demands are met.

Israel has no incentive to negotiate because terrorism will continue regardless of concessions, unless Israel gives up on every negotiating point -- which to some Palestinians means that Israel will cease to exist.

The Palestinians have no way to internally enforce any agreement with Israel regarding territory or terrorism because of Palestinian factionalism and weak enforcement authorities.

Israel has an incentive not to allow a more powerful Palestinian enforcement authority because of past abuses of that authority.

Past attempts at confidence-building have failed repeatedly, most recently post-Oslo and pre-second Intifadah.

How many people reading this blog would negotiate with someone who began negotiations by threatening or engaging in terrorism against them unless the reader agreed to all of the other party's demands? How many nations would do this? Why does Carter think Israel should react any differently?

Anyone who's actually read the book could not possibly come away with the notion that Carter thinks terrorism is a legitimate activity--and you don't have to wade a hundred pages into the book to figure that out. E.g., at p. 15: "Some Palestinians have responded to political and military occupation by launching terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, a course of action that is both morally reprehensible and politically counterproductive."

But, honestly, do I need to point out how irresponsible it is to draw the worst possible conclusions about a writer's beliefs and character from an ambiguous, cherry-picked sentence from somewhere in the middle of a book?

I share the Enchanter's view; I simply do not believe that President Carter endorses terrorism; I am mnore concerned about his grip on reality if he believes (1) the PA or any Arab Government can stop the violence; and (2) that the violence would stop were the road map and international law "adhered to by Israel." The best interpretation is that is naive; there are other more disturbing interpretations.

In re this call for greater "distancing," one need only read the article Eugene links to to find it--the sentence following the portion Eugene excerpted:

He added that Palestinians who embrace terrorism draw no support from him. Calls for the destruction of Israel, he said, "are completely obnoxious to me. I would have no brief for them and no sympathy for them."

As a general matter, actually reading a text does enhance one's competence commenting upon it, though alas in some cases even reading is not enough...

I'd be more impressed if Carter had told those students how incredibly wrong and awful they are.

I'd note that it's also somewhat interesting that the VC's commitment to free speech isn't so principled as one might think. Not that I think Carter's statement was offensive (not be a long shot), but even if it was, so what? Do any of you remember how this board (quite correctly) responded to the Danish cartoon incident?

A difference exists between censoring and questioning. I for one also don't find Carter's statement offensive - but asking Carter to clarify his words simply does not amount to censorship. A former president of the United states being questioned by a bunch of college students hardly seems a mortal threat to freedom of speech or democracy - certainly less a threat than if those students had been silenced by a restrictive policy enacted in the name of 'freedom of speech'.

The problem reasonable people had with regards to the danish cartoon incident was not that others were critical of the cartoons, but that such criticism was accompanied in some instances by the threat of violence.

I'd be more impressed if Carter had told those students how incredibly wrong and awful they are.

I'd note that it's also somewhat interesting that the VC's commitment to free speech isn't so principled as one might think. Not that I think Carter's statement was offensive (not be a long shot), but even if it was, so what? Do any of you remember how this board (quite correctly) responded to the Danish cartoon incident?

I'd guess that the VC commenters are, quite understandably, still waiting for the anti-Jimmy Carter riots/killings to commence before they begin comparing this situation to the Mohammed cartoon brouhaha. Criticism, however scathing, is a central part of the principle of free speech; violence and intimidation is not.

More than just a "threat" of violence as I recall. Buildings were torched and people killed. On top of that there were widespread (in the Muslim world) calls for every response from formal governmental condemnation, to prosecution, to murder of the people involved. Certainly there were efforts (albeit disorganized) to have governments ban the cartoons.

The response to Carter has not gotten any further than condemnation, with no calls for government action. The two situations are not at all comparable.

Just Dropping By:
"Palestinians fight because they are. The reasons are
buried in their culture."

Yep, no racism or bigotry here

Racism has little or nothing to do with cultural observations. Let me give you an example. Israelis are blunt to the point of rudeness and, in general, drive like they are hopped up on meth. That is a criticism (well, two criticisms) of Israeli culture. I could give more - there's lots of possible Israeli cultural criticism. Similarly, there's plenty of criticism one could heap on African-American culture - just ask Bill Cosby. In the case of the Palestinians, they have a culture that largely revolves around violence, which is a shame. They are not completely to blame - all cultures are shaped by internal and external influences. However, they are ultimately responsible for their own actions. The difference between "racist criticism" and "cultural criticism" is that one can not change one's own biological destiny or that of his kids, but one can sure as heck try to check the influence of culture.

Well, I've a question for Mr. Carter's defenders. Let's assume that Mr. Carter really didn't mean to endorse terrorism as a valid tactic for the Palestinians. Fair enough. If so, we have to assume that the statement was based on some settlement wherein Palestinian demands are met in exchange for an end to terrorism. Okay. Now, at what point of continued terrorism in the face of concessions would you assume that Mr. Carter is guilty of willful blindness in considering the issue?

"4) THEREFORE, the Palestinian authorities need to "make it clear" that if progress is made on the roadmap, the terrorism will in fact cease, because Israel believes to the contrary.

I am a newcomer to this debate, and I thank you for laying that out clearly. I see what Carter was trying to say. However, I still think Carter is wrong.

If point 4 is true, and terrorism will cease, this requires granting that the Palestinian authorities currently have control over the level of terrorism. But then why shouldn't they be required to take affirmative action to stop it now, if it is "morally unacceptible"?

If point 4 is false, and the authorities have little influence over the amount of terrorism, isn't Israel actually correct in doubting the 4-point formulation, because it would be unlikely to happen?

Well, that's a good question. I personally don't think the Palestinian authorities could stop the suicide bombings even if they wanted to. And I think Carter often comes across as naive (and gets painted as worse than naive), but the fact is, when you're a mediator you have little choice but to presume good faith on both sides and see where that takes you.

Let's do a thought experiment, and assume the Palestinian leadership acts in good faith, and let's further assume that it's physically possible for them to stop the acts of terrorism. I could see an argument that goes something like: "Terrorism, while it's morally unacceptable, enjoys broad support among the Palestinian population because they perceive Israel as a bad-faith actor. Thus, any Palestinian government that tried to crack down on terrorism would be thrown out of office. But if Israel does its part in the peace process, it would be more politically acceptable for the Palestinian government to combat terrorism in the name of negotiating for peace, and thus the Palestinians should make it clear that they're willing to take that step."

Plausible? I dunno. Like I said, I kinda take the easy way out by believing that there's unlikely to ever be peace in that part of the world. But I also think that people like Carter who put their life's blood into working towards peaceful solutions, even where they seem impossible to achieve, are doing God's work, and I find it hard to criticize. Matthew 5:9, you know.

I can understand why some people are upset about President Carter's apartheid criticisms of Israel, but it does seem to me to be unfair to say he supports terrorism against Israel. Also, for those who think he is naive, I would remind you that he brought Sadat and Begin together, and mediated the Camp David Peace Accord between Egypt and Israel, which has been the most significant Middle East peace accord achieved in the last 50 years. So, maybe we need more naive leaders than cynical ones who don't even try. I for one would welcome an attempt by the US to return the Palestinians and the Israelis to the negotiating table, a la President Clinton's efforts during the final days of his administration, and I suspect most Israelis and Palestinians would too.

Christopher, Carter deserves some credit for the Camp David accords, of course, but he most certainly did not "bring Sadat and Begin together." Sadat did the work, by visiting Israel and addressing the Knesset and agreeing to make peace; Carter was not involved until after the fact. Carter may have played a role in keeping the negotiations going and allowing the two sides to hammer out a deal (and certainly U.S. money played a key role for Egypt in making that deal) -- but Carter didn't initiate it. Sadat and Begin brought Sadat and Begin together.

Is Jimmy Carter realistic about anything? While he might have good intentions, he is utterly foolish about how to bring them about. As president he wanted to end expensive and unnecessary federal water projects. Did he succeed? No, he failed utterly because he could not compromise. Did his energy policy succeed? No, it too was an utter failure. Everything from the SynFuels Corporation to nuclear waste storage (The Yucca Mountain Project) failed. Given his track record why would anyone believe he has anything intelligent to say about the Middle East? When has he made an intelligent statement about anything? His new book is yet another example of his foolishness. Debating him about his book or anything else is a waste of time.

"Some Palestinians have responded to political and military occupation by launching terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, a course of action that is both morally reprehensible and politically counterproductive."

Two observations that Carter and his defenders find it inconvenient to acknowledge.

First, the terrorist attacks of "some Palestinians" have been endorsed and abetted by the elected leaders of the Palestinians, both before and after their election, including Arafat (y"sh), Abbas (y"sh), and Hamas (y"sh). Polls suggest that an overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people approve of these tactics and endorse the ultimate destruction of the state of Israel. No poll has ever suggested the contrary.

Second, it is either a lie or a willfull misreading of history to suggest that the terrorism is a "response." Terrorist attacks against the Jewish civiliazn population long pre-date the 1967 "occupation", beginning at least in the 1920's -- 4 decades before an independent state of Israel was even declared. Despite Carter's protestations to the contrary, the PLO was established with the declared goal of eliminating Israel militarily, policitally and culturally -- years before the 1967 war, while the "West Bank" was still controlled by Jordan and Gaza was still controlled by Egypt. The PLO charter states that these areas are part of Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and are not part of Palestine. In short, the 1967 "occupation" is the result of genocidal Arab attacks on Israel, not the cause.

"it is either a lie or a willfull misreading of history to suggest that the terrorism is a "response."

So no Palestianians have "responded" to political and military occupation by launching terrorist attacks? (Carter didn't say that Palestinian terrorism is always and has only ever been a "response." He said in some cases it has been a response. At all events, I think this is a rather hairsplitting response to an unambiguous statement of repugnance toward Palestian terrorism.)

As to your first point, I myself do not find it "inconvenient" to acknowledge it. I can't speak for Carter. I didn't come to praise Carter, certainly not to "defend" him tout court. I came only to dispell this nonsense about how Carter supposedly believed terrorism was a legitimate tactic of war--and that it is nonsense still seems to be something many of Carter's detractor's in these threads themselves find "inconvenient to acknowledge." How about you?

Arab terrorism against Jews in Israel long pre-dates "occupation." Arab determination to eliminate Israel caused the "occupation." It may well be that some Arabs engage in terrorism as a response to Israel's presence beyond the Green Line. To ignore the earlier and much greater terrorism in response to Isreal's very existence, or to posit that Israel's presence beyond the Green Line is at the root of the terrorism, or to pretend that the terrorism would cease if Israel withdrew to the 1949 Armistice lines, is so historically inaccurate, willfully and demonstrably false, intellectually dishonest, militarily and politically reckless, and needlessly endangers the lives of millions of people.

As to Carter's motives, I do not know and do not care. If someone wants to burn my house down with me and my family in it, I don't much care about the motives of someone else who listens to what he wants to do and then hands him matches and gasoline on the pretext that the arsonist just wanted to invite me to a weenie roast.

Carter has time and again announced that Jewish leaders murdered his god, and that the leaders of modern Israel remind him of the people who did it. Whether that affects his thinking I do not know and do not care.

"To ignore the earlier and much greater terrorism in response to Isreal's very existence, or to posit that Israel's presence beyond the Green Line is at the root of the terrorism, or to pretend that the terrorism would cease if Israel withdrew to the 1949 Armistice lines."

I agree with this sentiment, but don't recall Carter committing anything like these sins in his book (though admittedly I haven't read the whole thing--I don't think it's all that good). I suppose it's possible elsewhere he has, but I'm not an expert on Carter.

Anyway, at least during the portion of the book I've read, Carter speaks very warmly of his trips to Israel and his conversations with Jewish friends, colleagues and political leaders, so I'm surprised you say he associates them so strongly and negatively with the murder of Christ. I'm frankly skeptical you've accurately represented his views, but were your represenation accurate I'd certainly be glad to join you in disapprobation.

I agree with this sentiment, but don't recall Carter committing anything like these sins in his book (though admittedly I haven't read the whole thing—I don't think it's all that good). I suppose it's possible elsewhere he has, but I'm not an expert on Carter.

For a thorough and documented list of the factual errors and omissions in Carter's book, see

Anyway, at least during the portion of the book I've read, Carter speaks very warmly of his trips to Israel and his conversations with Jewish friends, colleagues and political leaders, so I'm surprised you say he associates them so strongly and negatively with the murder of Christ. I'm frankly skeptical you've accurately represented his views, but were your represenation accurate I'd certainly be glad to join you in disapprobation.

He also said that when he heard the Samaritan community's complaints of alleged mistreatment by the Israeli government, he could not help but be reminded of "the same complaints heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier". He also speaks proudly of how he took Golda Meir to task about Israel's secular nature. And in a 2005 article in Smithsonian about the Camp David treaty, an aide recounts that Carter was convinced that Begin did not really want peace. I'm sure that in Carter's own mind, many of his best friends are Jewish, but given the nature of his actions, his choice of friends, his selective memory and his gross distortions of history, I can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt the way I did when he taught his Sunday School Class — while still President — that "the Jewish leaders" arranged the murder of Jesus.

As to whether I have accurately represented his deicide charge, I have found the incident in the past via Google but do not seem able to locate it right now. If I find it, I will post a link.

This clarification on Carter's part doesn't reflect much of an admission at all. Essentially Carter is pointedly asked if he favors terrorism as a policy and he avows he does not. Not terribly substantial and not necessarily revealing in the least; whether or not someone avows something or not has little practical import as it's the totality of meaning which carries practical import, not isolated avowals.

It would be far more interesting and far more revealing to come to terms with what has transpired in Hamas's launching base, aka Gaza, since it was turned over in 2005. Or Hezbollah's launching base, aka southern Lebanon, since it was "deployed" from in 2000. Or he could have debated Dershowitz, as that too would have developed far more revealing and far more transparent explications. Instead he answers a puffball question and abjures from more difficult, more revealing forums and eludications of his positions, along with the practical ramifications stemming from those positions. One may as well applaud the Good Intentions™ of any number of critical political initiatives during the 20th century while ignoring the practical import that ensued.

"Carter has repeatedly fallen back -- possibly unconsciously -- on traditional anti-Semitic canards. In the Los Angeles Times last month, he declared it "politically suicide" for a politician to advocate a "balanced position" on the crisis. On Al-Jazeera TV, he dismissed the critique of his book by declaring that "most of the condemnations of my book came from Jewish-American organizations." Jeffrey Goldberg, who lambasted the book in The Post last month, writes for the New Yorker. Ethan Bronner, who in the New York Times called the book "a distortion," is the Times' deputy foreign editor. Slate's Michael Kinsley declared it "moronic." Dennis Ross, who was chief negotiator on the conflict in the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, described the book as a rewriting and misrepresentation of history. Alan Dershowitz teaches at Harvard and Ken Stein at Emory. Both have criticized the book. Because of the book's inaccuracies and imbalance and Carter's subsequent behavior, 14 members of the Carter Center's Board of Councilors have resigned -- many in anguish because they so respect Carter's other work. All are Jews. Does that invalidate their criticism -- and mine -- or render us representatives of Jewish organizations?

"On CNN, Carter bemoaned the "tremendous intimidation in our country that has silenced" the media. Carter has appeared on C-SPAN, "Larry King Live" and "Meet the Press," among many shows. When a caller to C-SPAN accused Carter of anti-Semitism, the host cut him off. Who's being silenced?

"Perhaps unused to being criticized, Carter reflexively fell back on this kind of innuendo about Jewish control of the media and government. Even if unconscious, such stereotyping from a man of his stature is noteworthy. When David Duke spouts it, I yawn. When Jimmy Carter does, I shudder.

"Others can enumerate the many factual errors in this book. A man who has done much good and who wants to bring peace has not only failed to move the process forward but has given refuge to scoundrels."

It's the totality of meaning that has practical import, not the correction of an isolated phrase. Open debate and more far more transparent explications are needed; instead too many are rendering fawning, praise to an avuncular, iconic, former president.

I think the particular issue of this quote by Carter — while revealing of him — is relatively minor.

I'd like to see Carter apologize — much better yet, substitute truth for lies — with regard to the maps in his book, which seem clearly intended to deceive (lie) with regard to what actually was offered the Palestinians (and when) during the 2000 negotiations with Clinton and Barak. Carter's plagiarism of the maps is incidental to this massive fraud.